300,000,000 Population In The USA: Soon

[Bear Up North]

Even though the number-crunchers are indicating that the United States will have 300,000,000 people in October, 2006, the media types are already posting stories and articles about what that means. Of course, key words and phrases that have already been thrown about include planners, sprawl, population bomb, traffic congestion, immigration, increased life expectancy, etc.

I have a few questions.....

Have you given any thoughts to what it means? Do you think these are topics that should have been talked-about years ago, as the related issues started to surface?
Have you incorporated the topic into any presentations you have planned for the next few months? Does that very-visible "big number" give planners an edge when pushing for the kinds of reforms you desire?

What say you?

Bear (237,876,924th American)

[otterpop]

Scary number. What concerns me is what we are losing in quality of life. We continually are pushing out into unoccupied lands, ag lands, leaving the natural world increasingly fragmented and unhealthy. Personally, I think we have too many people already. About a hundred million of them are starting to p**s me off.

[Zoning Goddess]

It makes me envious of jurisdications that bemoan their loss/non-growth of population. I lived in a little FL town for 15 years and it never gained/lost more than 100 residents (always stayed around 7,000). That was nice. Unfortunately, the rest of the county was growing an an alarmingly rapid rate.

[Senior Jefe]

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm has been promoting immigration reform by stating that the U.S. will have a population of 1 billion in the year 2100 using the current growth and immigration rates. Now that's a scary number even if you won't be here to see it! Without immigration the population will reach zero growth sometime by mid-century. He is saying even in a nation made of immigrants, if you think this country has problems now with 300 million people, do you think things will be better with 1 billion people? You, I and he knows that is a very simplistic way to look at immigration and population issues but for a Democrat he is one of the few that knows how to keep his message simple.

[dobopoq]

Well for one thing, it irks me when people look at population only in terms of immigration. That's like looking at U.S. fossil fuel dependence by saying we're too dependent on foreign oil. The problem isn't that it's foreign. Now that the world is at or near peak oil, what are we going to do - import it from another planet? Likewise, it is foolish to take such a non-holistic look at population. The U.S. population is only about 1 in every 22 people on the Earth. Yet we burn oil as if 1 in 4 people on the planet are American. For the entire oil age, the U.S. has continously been the world's leading consumer of oil. Let's ask ourselves, what is so special about our 300,000,000 people that we consume resources as though we comprise 1.7 billion people? Doesn't the rest of the world have a right to be pissed at us? For every new American Baby or immigrant, the world's average couple could have 5 babies and still use less resources than that one instant-gratification spoiled-brat American baby! Either we power down and recalibrate our lifestyles or mother nature will capsize our overloaded ship for us.

[JNA]

Interesting stats from the US Census Bureau about their Population Clock:

COMPONENT SETTINGS FOR JULY 2006
One birth every.........................................7 seconds
One death every.....................................13 seconds
One international migrant (net) every........31 seconds
Net gain of one person every...................10 seconds

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

[Zoning Goddess]

Originally posted by dobopoq

Doesn't the rest of the world have a right to be pissed at us? For every new American Baby or immigrant, the world's average couple could have 5 babies and still use less resources than that one instant-gratification spoiled-brat American baby! Either we power down and recalibrate our lifestyles or mother nature will capsize our overloaded ship for us.

Using electricity? Own a computer with polluting parts?

hahahaha.... you're one of us.....

(OK, you don't drive, neither does anyone in NYC, can't call them environmentally responsible, either. Just when they wanna be wannabes....) Bet a grip. Move to Namibia or wherever Brad went and have babies....

[mgk920]

Originally posted by Senior Jefe

Former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm has been promoting immigration reform by stating that the U.S. will have a population of 1 billion in the year 2100 using the current growth and immigration rates. Now that's a scary number even if you won't be here to see it! Without immigration the population will reach zero growth sometime by mid-century. He is saying even in a nation made of immigrants, if you think this country has problems now with 300 million people, do you think things will be better with 1 billion people? You, I and he knows that is a very simplistic way to look at immigration and population issues but for a Democrat he is one of the few that knows how to keep his message simple.

Well, the way some of the wackoest of the commentators have been putting it WRT illegal migration from Mexico, we (the USA) will have completely depopulated their entire country looooong before some of their dire predictions would have had a chance to come true. Remember, there are 'only' about 105,000,000 people (just a smidgeon over 1/3 of the USA's current population) living in all of Mexico.

Mike

[illinoisplanner]

Originally posted by dobopoq

Well for one thing, it irks me when people look at population only in terms of immigration. That's like looking at U.S. fossil fuel dependence by saying we're too dependent on foreign oil. The problem isn't that it's foreign. Now that the world is at or near peak oil, what are we going to do - import it from another planet? Likewise, it is foolish to take such a non-holistic look at population. The U.S. population is only about 1 in every 22 people on the Earth. Yet we burn oil as if 1 in 4 people on the planet are American. For the entire oil age, the U.S. has continously been the world's leading consumer of oil. Let's ask ourselves, what is so special about our 300,000,000 people that we consume resources as though we comprise 1.7 billion people? Doesn't the rest of the world have a right to be pissed at us? For every new American Baby or immigrant, the world's average couple could have 5 babies and still use less resources than that one instant-gratification spoiled-brat American baby! Either we power down and recalibrate our lifestyles or mother nature will capsize our overloaded ship for us.

Well, us and the rest of the developed world just happened to get there first. They want to get the resources too, well then they'll just have to try and compete with us for it. They're starting to do so, and that's why I just paid $3.19/gal. for gas tonight.

[dobopoq]

Originally posted by illinoisplanner

Well, us and the rest of the developed world just happened to get there first. They want to get the resources too, well then they'll just have to try and compete with us for it. They're starting to do so, and that's why I just paid $3.19/gal. for gas tonight.

Well, most of the other industrialized countries still only use half the oil we do. Several European countries are laying the groundwork to completely shift out of fossil fuels and over to renewables by mid-century.

Of all the countries that began an early industrialization in the 19th century, only the U.S. and Russia had significant oil deposits. We never had to compete with anyone for the oil until the 1970's. There is a direct relation between fossil fuel consumptions and GDP. Right now, our tax dollars subsidize our military to be an oil protection force. Sooner or later, the government won't be able to bury the cost of our sprawl lifestyle from us. Do you think we're going to "compete" economically for our growing demand for an ever-shrinking supply of oil, when millions of metro commuters have to drive 60 miles before they can even begin their working day? If we don't change our ways soon, we are on a collision course with China for WWIII.

Why do you think it makes sense to continue burning through a non-renewable resource that took 100 million years to produce, and that will soon run dry in a geological blink of an eye? To me, this seems like a greedy all-for-today, and to-hell-with-the-future attitude.

[michaelskis]

Here is the run down... the 300,000,000 person will be a child born in the South West US some place, and be the child of persons of Hispanic origin. Their parents will live in poverty, but she will be raised to be bilingual, determined to be educated, and their lifestyle will be of upper middle class once she reaches the age of 30.

Sprawl will continue, but so will residential development in the downtown cores of several major cities in the US.

[Dan]

Originally posted by michaelskis

Here is the run down... the 300,000,000 person will be a child born in the South West US some place, and be the child of persons of Hispanic origin. Their parents will live in poverty, but she will be raised to be bilingual, determined to be educated, and their lifestyle will be of upper middle class once she reaches the age of 30.

It depends. It's easy to classify all "Hispanics" into one neat category, but when I lived in New Mexico, I found that there were many subcommunities. The biggest three were:

* Ethnically SPANISH families who have been established in New Mexico for literally centuries. Many live in isolated communities by choice, and are not assimilated. Many are middle to upper-middle class and assimilated. Quite prominent in NM politics.

* Working class, ethnically Mexican families with multiple generations in New Mexico. They speak English, but tend to be far more culturally Hispanic than the Anglos they live around.

* Recent Mexican immigrants, mostly living in colonias close to the US border, mainly from rural Chihuahua, Sonora, Durango and other states in northern Mexico. They're mostly poor, and even after a couple of generations there is little assimilation. Being close to El Paso and Juarez, they can get by just fine without knowing English.

Living in NM, one hears certain family names almost constantly. I can still remember them, they were so common: Gutierrez, Telles, De La O, Aguirre, Montoya, Archuleta, Romero, Sandoval, Vigil, Baca, Jamarillo, and so on. If someone doesn't have one of these common surnames, they're much likely to be immigrants or second generation residents. Likewise, when I meet someone with one of these names and ask them if they have family in New Mexico, the answer is always "yes."

If you meet someone in New Mexico with a quintessential name like "Rudy Sandoval" or "Alejandro Montoya," they're probably NOT of Mexican decent.

[teshadoh]

Originally posted by michaelskis

Here is the run down... the 300,000,000 person will be a child born in the South West US some place, and be the child of persons of Hispanic origin. Their parents will live in poverty, but she will be raised to be bilingual, determined to be educated, and their lifestyle will be of upper middle class once she reaches the age of 30.

Sprawl will continue, but so will residential development in the downtown cores of several major cities in the US.

For whatever reason - a demographer has actually provided the location this will occur - in Los Angeles.

[jringel]

Originally posted by otterpop

Scary number. What concerns me is what we are losing in quality of life. We continually are pushing out into unoccupied lands, ag lands, leaving the natural world increasingly fragmented and unhealthy. Personally, I think we have too many people already. About a hundred million of them are starting to p**s me off.

I couldn't agree more!!!!! I think about two hundred million people have p**s me off. Maybe we can split the difference.

[jordanb]

Originally posted by otterpop

Scary number. What concerns me is what we are losing in quality of life. We continually are pushing out into unoccupied lands, ag lands, leaving the natural world increasingly fragmented and unhealthy.

You know, it's not more people that is causing us to push out into farmland. Metros that are losing population overall are still eating up farmland. What's causing us to do that is our own gluttony.

[otterpop]

Originally posted by jordanb

You know, it's not more people that is causing us to push out into farmland. Metros that are losing population overall are still eating up farmland. What's causing us to do that is our own gluttony.

Yes and no. People leave the metros because living in the urban areas does not appeal to them any longer. The desire of most people is to have a house and a yard. Mine too, though I do live in a small city. A city which is growing in population (mostly people moving in) and the city is expanding into the hinterlands like mad. There is no place for them to go in the city, so they have to go to the edges and built. More people need more yards. If we had fewer people (fewer gluttons), then more land left in an undeveloped state.

We have plenty of places in Montana that have no growth or a losing population. Those areas are not eating up farmland or natural land. They are static or dying.

We have a lot of people moving here from more populous states, especially California. A big factor in their moves is to get away from the perceived overcrowding of thier previous homes, congestion, etc. They certainly are not leaving sunny California to come to Montana because of our beaches and temperate weather!

The world needs fewer damn people. When I am hiking or floating a river, I never think, you know, this is nice, but what we really could use here is a few hundred houses and a super two highway. These elk are just wasting good land.

More people doesn't make the world a better place, just less comfortable and more dangerous.

Gluttony is only part of the thing eating up undeveloped land. Too many people is another.

[mgk920]

Originally posted by michaelskis

Here is the run down... the 300,000,000 person will be a child born in the South West US some place, and be the child of persons of Hispanic origin. Their parents will live in poverty, but she will be raised to be bilingual, determined to be educated, and their lifestyle will be of upper middle class once she reaches the age of 30.

Sprawl will continue, but so will residential development in the downtown cores of several major cities in the US.

I do find it interesting that in general, Hispanics/Latinos are far more likely to be attracted to dense urban neighborhood living than those USAians of mostly white/European descent. Could you see this demographic tendancy having a long-term effect on the pressures for 'sprawl' type suburban development and densification and related zoning changes in central-city and even newer developing areas as time passes?

Mike

[BKM]

Originally posted by otterpop

Yes and no. People leave the metros because living in the urban areas does not appeal to them any longer. The desire of most people is to have a house and a yard. Mine too, though I do live in a small city. A city which is growing in population (mostly people moving in) and the city is expanding into the hinterlands like mad. There is no place for them to go in the city, so they have to go to the edges and built. More people need more yards. If we had fewer people (fewer gluttons), then more land left in an undeveloped state.

We have plenty of places in Montana that have no growth or a losing population. Those areas are not eating up farmland or natural land. They are static or dying.

We have a lot of people moving here from more populous states, especially California. A big factor in their moves is to get away from the perceived overcrowding of thier previous homes, congestion, etc. They certainly are not leaving sunny California to come to Montana because of our beaches and temperate weather!

The world needs fewer damn people. When I am hiking or floating a river, I never think, you know, this is nice, but what we really could use here is a few hundred houses and a super two highway. These elk are just wasting good land.

More people doesn't make the world a better place, just less comfortable and more dangerous.

Gluttony is only part of the thing eating up undeveloped land. Too many people is another.

So...what's the answer? In much of the country, it's a combination of both. As jordan points out, there are metro areas (Dan's beloved Buffalo) where destruction of the countryside continues despite the fundamental lack of real population growth. Can we continue to support this as a society-the sixty mile commutes, the two acre hobby farms, etc? Are we so fundamentally antisocial as a culture that we are unable to live in urban settings? Are we willing to destroy entire swaths of rural land so we can have a fake symbolic farm (a lawn)? Because that's the choice: endless, ecologically and economically catastrophic sprawl or living with less.

[cololi]

Originally posted by michaelskis

Sprawl will continue, but so will residential development in the downtown cores of several major cities in the US.

Interesting article in July's Governing magazine talks about the number of people living in downtown Vancouver and the resulting push of office space out of downtown to make room for more residential development. Roughly 100,000 of the 560,000 residents of Vancouver live in residential towers on thes that 5 square miles, according to the article.

{philosophical questions}Is it possible that a downtown could be loved to death and turn into a high density inner city where everyone has to commute out of the core to get to work? Is this "reverse sprawl" any different than the common notion of sprawl?

[michaelskis]

Originally posted by cololi

Is it possible that a downtown could be loved to death and turn into a high density inner city where everyone has to commute out of the core to get to work? Is this "reverse sprawl" any different than the common notion of sprawl?

Reverse commuting? In fact I start in two weeks. While talking with several of the other 20 something young professional singles and couples who purchased condos in the same building as us, I found that almost all of them have a reverse commute out to the suburbs or another smaller municipality.

I also noticed that the demographic of people purchasing condos in downtown grand rapids are either young professional singles and childless couples, or post 50 year old empty nesters who have reduced their space living requirements and found that living in the condos in downtown have offered them the opportunity to still own, have limited property maintenance responsibilities, yet still have all the amenities they need within short distance.

The downfall with this is it is creating a poverty ring around some urban cores. Many of the lower income and income assisted apartment rentals are being turned into condos and the asking price exceeds what the residents can afford. Then they are gutted and renovated with modern electronics and features to attract higher income persons, resulting in the displacement and concentration of lower income persons in the older suburbs.

As the population grows, the impoverished will be pushed from one location to another because of the resurgence of urban living.

[jaws]

Originally posted by BKM

So...what's the answer? In much of the country, it's a combination of both. As jordan points out, there are metro areas (Dan's beloved Buffalo) where destruction of the countryside continues despite the fundamental lack of real population growth. Can we continue to support this as a society-the sixty mile commutes, the two acre hobby farms, etc? Are we so fundamentally antisocial as a culture that we are unable to live in urban settings? Are we willing to destroy entire swaths of rural land so we can have a fake symbolic farm (a lawn)? Because that's the choice: endless, ecologically and economically catastrophic sprawl or living with less.

The reason this continues is that you keep referring to this as a problem for "we" and "society" instead of a problem brought about by specific structures. Society isn't going to do anything about it because society is not a real thing. Specific people in specific functions have to do something.

You never commented on my investigation into the cause of sprawl by the way. I'd like to know what you think.

[BKM]

Originally posted by jaws

The reason this continues is that you keep referring to this as a problem for "we" and "society" instead of a problem brought about by specific structures. Society isn't going to do anything about it because society is not a real thing. Specific people in specific functions have to do something.

You never commented on my investigation into the cause of sprawl by the way. I'd like to know what you think.

OK, I'll agree. I'm being sloppy by using the term "Society" as a causal actor. "Society" may not be a causal factor, but it is certainly a useful description for the cumulative effects of these individual and governmental and corporate actions.

[pete-rock]

Originally posted by michaelskis

As the population grows, the impoverished will be pushed from one location to another because of the resurgence of urban living.

I don't think there is any place where this is more evident than Chicago. Many of our inner-ring suburbs, particularly some southern and western 'burbs, are in a slow but steady decline from their '60s and '70s heydays, and they are currently unable to compete with the booming exurbs or downtown condo/high-rise living.

BTW, couldn't it be that USAian #300,000,000 is already here, depending on how we factor in immigration?

[gkmo62u]

I suggest that this is probably the question of our time, for planners, for the Country. How do we handle the growth? Birth, Immigration, Medicine, all contribute to a growing population. Funny, but we all deal with the no/smart-growth, nimby, banana, people all the time. And this is what the debate is about. Saying no is not the answer and never was. Its the "how" and "why" we never talk about enough on this thread.

(And it should be moved away from FAC because it is infact that critical)

We can all write our preferred invectives, whether its "sprawl is ruining our nation and wasting its resources" or "cities are not places for families because or crime, density and the schools are bloody awful" or whatever. But that gets us no closer to solutions. It is not an option I do not think to close our borders or employ China's one child policy.

BKM proffers a good place to depart from: are we to become a nation of 60 mile commuters? Maybe. Land prices, affordable housing, cars, lawns, schools, all have something to do with this.

But my point here is that we never try to understand or accept WHY people choose the suburban lifestyle. Yes, the home mortgage deduction helps but thats not going anywhere. We have to be realistic. Our first reaction in the sprawl debate always is that we must make cities better, as if everyone wants density surrounding them. What if we are wrong? What if cities as places of balance, of culture, of diverse housing opportunities, can no longer rise to that level? What if cities ARE places only for the young transient or older empty nester? Then what?

I know this is maybe off topic but its a real life debate that folks like us should help answer. Many of you know already that I typically come across as a strong pro growth suburbanite who commutes and who loves my suburban neighborhood (and covet even more acreage and less neigbors!) I think that in the growth debate we fail to give the "prosperity of sprawl" any measure.

But I am willing to listen as to how to make everything better. But you cannot start by telling me I must live in an apartment with my wife and 3 kids above a metro stop!

[BKM]

Originally posted by gkmo62u

But my point here is that we never try to understand or accept WHY people choose the suburban lifestyle. Yes, the home mortgage deduction helps but thats not going anywhere. We have to be realistic. Our first reaction in the sprawl debate always is that we must make cities better, as if everyone wants density surrounding them. What if we are wrong? What if cities as places of balance, of culture, of diverse housing opportunities, can no longer rise to that level? What if cities ARE places only for the young transient or older empty nester? Then what?

I know this is maybe off topic but its a real life debate that folks like us should help answer. Many of you know already that I typically come across as a strong pro growth suburbanite who commutes and who loves my suburban neighborhood (and covet even more acreage and less neigbors!) I think that in the growth debate we fail to give the "prosperity of sprawl" any measure.

But I am willing to listen as to how to make everything better. But you cannot start by telling me I must live in an apartment with my wife and 3 kids above a metro stop!

I would never deny that the propensity to sprawl is the most powerful driving force in American suburbanization. As planners, do we merely work with the market and cultural forces to accelerate/expedite/facilitate this? I know that is the role in my county (less so my place of employment, versus the town where I live where all the powers that be would encourage paving every single inch of farmland and hillsides if they could)

This gets back to the fundamental definitional issue of planning: what is the purpose of planning, to tweak the details and timing of market-driven growth, or to be proactive and directive and restrictive? I don't know the easy answer to this.

Because, the question is: what kind of country do you want to live in? If we all (or even a significant portion of us) have our two acre faux rural estates, it won't be a very pleasnt place-there will be no real contruyside, no real towns, nothing but winding, over-taxed country roads with big McMansions on them. Those who can't afford this will be stuck in the underfunded, decaying leftovers.

Bout...no more ranting for me today.